Post: #1

Interesting article in the Economist about the supply and demand of hookers over time.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-sta...statistics

Interesting stats: 69% of men in 1911 say have paid for sex, compared to 15% of men in 2007. Average hooker in 1911 made 25k per year whereas now it's 18k (in 2007 dollars).

Bottom line: Compared to 100 years ago, hookers are now cheaper because clearly men can now get sex easily from an endless string of "girlfriends" which often require little more commitment than a hooker in 1911. I'm not complaining.

Post: #2

Roissy vindicated again. Women's behavior has directly caused a decrease in their own SMV.

Post: #3

What's also interesting is that there is greater wealth inequality. A 100$ is the same regardless of game, but in the new sexual economy, not everyone has equal opportunity. Wealth concentrated in a few alphas.

Post: #4

69%?! Wow, that's a lot.

Looks like the pill made a lot of free postitutes out of women!

Post: #5

(03-29-2014 04:41 PM)poutsara Wrote:  Interesting article in the Economist about the supply and demand of hookers over time.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-sta...statistics

Interesting stats: 69% of men in 1911 say have paid for sex, compared to 15% of men in 2007. Average hooker in 1911 made 25k per year whereas now it's 18k (in 2007 dollars).

Bottom line: Compared to 100 years ago, hookers are now cheaper because clearly men can now get sex easily from an endless string of "girlfriends" which often require little more commitment than a hooker in 1911. I'm not complaining.

The 69% of guys that said they had paid was actually from 1948, not 1911.

Post: #6

(03-29-2014 05:09 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  The 69% of guys that said they had paid was actually from 1948, not 1911.

Nice catch - you are right. Makes it even more interesting.

Post: #7

The price of pussy is at an all-time low. They just giving it away and I couldn't be happier.

Post: #8

Crazy that they said pimps are often women .

Post: #9

(03-29-2014 05:39 PM)poutsara Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 05:09 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  The 69% of guys that said they had paid was actually from 1948, not 1911.

Nice catch - you are right. Makes it even more interesting.

For the most part the only guys that bang hookers these days are well off married guys in sexless marriages and schlubs that can't get laid if their lives depended on it.

Back in the day very few women gave up the trim before marriage so guys had to pay for it to get some ass. Feminism brought with it the slutification of American women, hence less need for paid whores.

Supply and demand, ergo capitalism.

Post: #10

(03-29-2014 05:39 PM)poutsara Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 05:09 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  The 69% of guys that said they had paid was actually from 1948, not 1911.

Nice catch - you are right. Makes it even more interesting.

Prob. A good number of WW2 vets in the survey, given the year

Post: #11

Was the $25K per year in 1911 adjusted for inflation... or was that what they actually made? (because if they did, holy fuck!)

$17K per year seems quite low though... just wondering if includes part-time hookers (a university student with a sugar daddy, for example, or a hooker working one night every week or two)

But if they're lowering the SMV, hey, it works for me! (as someone to fuck rather than marry)

Post: #12

It is also possible that the ease of access of porn + porn being free is affecting the hooker business. Sex with a condom does not provide a sensation much different to your hand.

Post: #13

(03-29-2014 10:25 PM)Lucario Wrote:  It is also possible that the ease of access of porn + porn being free is affecting the hooker business. Sex with a condom does not provide a sensation much different to your hand.

Hell, I wonder if they even used condoms back then.